Post Your Comment

30 Comments

I built this, and I luv the thing. I used a gig of mushkin instead of 512, also used a 9800pro. and a asus deluxe rev 2 board. I have an abit nf7, but I really wanted to keep it quite, and wanted the dual net. So I used the asus. I spent about the same thing, well withen 20 bucks of what was posted. I built it to run quite, but I have run it up to 2.5mhz. and my scores are fantastic. I now have it tuned down to 2.2 mhz, at the lowest voltage my board will register. And I am still getting well over 17000 on the 3d2001 mark. I love flight sem, halo, and far cry. And its quite till I crank the sound. Actually one of the quitest I have ever built.
SteveReply

Wow, im surprised actually. The FIRST motherboard ANYONE with knowledge will recommend for a mobile is either a DFI lanpartyII B or a DFI infinity board... 270fsb is nothing to sneeze at with active northbridge cooling.

Whats with the 9600pro again? the 5900XT totally destroys it in 90% of tests, its obviously a better card... in saying that, the gainward ultra 5900 isnt much more and has 2.2ns ram, the card is known to go over 5950 speeds. Take it one more step and you've got the 9800pro etc... im sure an overclocker will not be happy with a 9600pro, thats for sure.

Its always nice to see reviews/suggestions like this, good work :)Reply

A rather late post, that I intended to put here much earlier. Well let's hope people still read this.

This is a very helpful topic of course in getting an idea of what to buy for a such and so PC. The thing I am missing here is the qualification in terms of use.

Wouldn't it be an idea to specialize a machine for say DAW purposes, Video Editing, Gaming and maybe other demanding tasks. This makes choices in hardware rather different, I assume. Is that something that can be done here on AT or does anybody know sites where they do this. I am especially interested in DAW and Video editing.Reply

Why recommend the Athlon XP-M 2500+ over the 2400+ and 2600+ parts? The 2400+ is a good deal cheaper and only spec'd for a few MHz below the 2500+, and the 2600+ is spec'd for a full 2GHz with only 1.45v and is only $10 more than the 2500+. I'd say that the 2600+ is definitely the best overclocking buy right now since many people are getting ~2.5GHz @ 1.65v and 2.6-2.8GHz with higher voltage.Reply

Oh, and DannyOcean... you say the mobile Athlon XP's only have a 266 Mhz FSB. So what? Mine's running on a 432 Mhz FSB right now... just cause at stock speed they run at 266 Mhz doesn't mean you HAVE to run that at that speed.Reply

A Northwood P4C certainly does run faster clock-for-clock, but I would argue that you will not find 2.4C-2.8C P4's (which all clock quite similar) clocking higher on average then a 2.4A Prescott. The 3.0C-3.4C P4's are a differant story, though, and they do clock quite high. They also cost more then $75 over a 2.4A. Reply

Yeah, I think we'll include an "Alternative" chart next time. As far as your other comments go, I agree to a point that we should include benchmarks. However, this is a still a "guide" and not so much a "review". Certain guides demand testing (mostly just the overclocking ones). Still, we'll give this more consideration. :)

DannyOcean,

The 2.8C is a better overclocking processor and isn't that much more. The 2.4A is slower per clock and draws considerably more power at high overclocks. Plus, the 2.8C actually overclocks better.

timebecomes,

Yes, but you can always say there is something around the corner. Plus, with video cards, sometimes you just never know with a new core how good initial driver support will be, among other early issues that arise with new products. Reply

AnandTech should consider placing the Intel 2.4A (533 FSB) Prescott w/ 1MB L2 Cache CPU as an Intel alternative to the Mobile Athlons. The 2.4A (not to be confused with the earlier 2.4A that had a 400MHz FSB) has shown excellant overclocking headroom for a $150 Intel CPU. With decent air or water cooling it's capable of reaching 800 FSB (200MHz x 18 for a 3.6GHz overal speed). It's costs less then a 2.4C and offers a high multiplier that allows users to use low-latency DDR400 without needing a 5:4 or 3:2 ratio. Reply

What we really need are the *benchmarks* from these systems. What many people fail to understand is that an Athlon XP at 2.5 GHz is much faster than the Athlon XP 3200+. I would wager that the overall performance of the AXP 2.5 GHz is going to be the same if not better than the A64 3000+ (2.0 GHz and 512K cache). In fact, the 1 MB of cache on the A64 3200+ really only helps a few applications, so AXP 2.5 GHz could very likely equal that as well.

So when are we going to get a set of benchmarks for all of the systems that are being recommended in the Buyers' Guides? I'm thinking that a five week cycle would be nice, unless you can just put the benchmarks into a chart for all the systems. Ideally, what you would have would be one set of pages that would automatically update with all the latest results from each of the systems. That would be pretty slick. Put a link to that in each guide, and we could just go check out the results for the current "recommended configurations". I for one am very curious to see how the OC system compares to the high-end system!

And if it's not too much to ask, how about the total cost of the "Alternative" configurations? The "Alternative" is almost always higher performance, I think, so just have two tables at the end of the articles, one with the recommended setup, and one with the alternative. (And include the alternative setups in the benchmarks, if those are ever done.)

Wow, I'm such a demanding twit. Sorry. Great job on these guides, though!Reply

i don't understand the why anyone would want to oc currently to save money unless i'm missing something. a 3000+ amd 64 is only just a bit more($90) but it is guaranteed to work. the savings in ocing just doesn't seem to be very good when compared to the added risk. instead of the system listed you could get an amd 64 3000+ w/ 1GB 3200 ram, and basically similar quality components for practically the same price. you could even oc it a little for even more performance.Reply

3.0C is more of a crapshoot, not to mention more money than a 2.8C. The overclocking difference between the two is no where near 400MHz, either. Look at our 2.8C overclock as just one example.

Jeff7181,

Spending well over $100 more for less storage and only occasionally noticeable access time increases just isn't reasonable. At least, IMO. :)

PrinceGaz,

I disagree. We're not claiming this overclocking system will meet everyone's needs. However, we make an attempt to fit as many needs as possible. It's impossible to please every buyer's (or in this case, overclocker's) needs. Some people will find this system perfect, while others won't. Not a whole lot we can do about it.

The 3.0C isnt that big of a price increase from the 2.8C, $30 according to the chart at the bottom of that page. Especially since the guys at the overclockers.com forum have bought several and shown that average overclocks are 3.7G. One guy bought 4, one ran at 3.65, two ran at 3.75, one ran at 3.9+ (P95 stable, all on air). Those are pretty favorable numbers when you look at it. If a 2.8Cs averages at 3.35, and the new 30 cap 3.0Cs average 3.7, the $30 is worth it for the extra 400MHz. At least to me. YMMV.Reply

I spose the XP-M 2500+ is really what this article recommended and everything else was just padding.

Unless you're talking high-end overclocking in which case water-cooling is only the beginning and peltiers aren't far behind, then the typical overclocker is looking to save money by getting something that stands a good chance of performing reliably at higher than rated speeds. Thats what the XP-M 2500+ offers as its almost a dead cert to overclock like a trooper when set to normal non-Mobile voltage, and all without needing to worry about extra cooling as you're not really overclocking it (you're just setting it to what is in effect its default voltage on what would otherwise be an underclocked chip). Stick it in your mid-range system of two weeks ago and you've got something a lot closer to what a typical cost-driven overclocker would probably consider and they'd save quite a bit of money too by avoiding certain premium components that give relatively small returns in terms of how high the CPU will go.

The problem is theres all types of overclockers and an article which attempts to target a mixture of them usually ends up missing the mark on most counts.Reply

Anyways... Guys, the majority of overclockers do it to save money when getting higher performance, not to get higher performance at all costs. 3.0GHz P4C's, Raptors, those are all touchy expenditures when you're lookin' to save a couple hundred bucks.Reply

I still don't agree with the Raptor being the 2nd choice... I still think if you're concerned about speed at all, which overclockers are, you have to get a Raptor. Then you get a larger slower drive for storage.

If you happen to be an NVIDIA fan, its worth taking a look at the 5900XT. Most of the people I have seen with the card can overclock it to within spitting distance of the highend 5900 or 5950 parts. Kinda nice for a ~$200 card.Reply

The radeon 9800 se should be mentioned, through drivers it can have all the hardware pipes enabled to perform as fast as (if successful) a 9500 pro (128bit mem) and even a 9800 if it has a 256bit memory bus.

Anyways, I'm surprised the 3.0Ghz C chip wasnt recomended for the intel overclocking system. A lot of people have had great results, most get to 3.6, many can get to 3.75 on air, and water and better cooling get to 3.9, 4.0 (though it doesnt seem many get past 4Ghz). The ones that have 30 caps on the bottom, those seem to provide the best OC regardless of scode. Reply